Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete in Education Settings

Christian Wakeford Excerpts

Monday 4th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Gillian Keegan]

I will have to write to my hon. Friend about that particular school, because I do not have the list of all the school rebuilding, but the intention is that for schools that have already been identified and announced it will still go ahead.

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)]

I received an email from the Secretary of State at 7.15 pm on Friday, the weekend before schools were due to go back, advising that a school in my constituency might be affected, so the truth is that the Secretary of State does not even know. Can she advise when parents will know whether or not their children are safe at school, because this is not good enough, is it?

[Gillian Keegan]

They are safe in school. When I say that a school might be affected, that means it has been identified as containing suspected RAAC from the questionnaire that the responsible body has sent back. Those are the ones we will be doing the surveys on in the next two weeks. As I say, usually two thirds of them are not affected, but it sounds to me like the hon. Gentleman’s school is in that category, and we will be getting to it in the next two weeks.

Higher Education Students: Statutory Duty of Care

Christian Wakeford Excerpts

Monday 5th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Nick Fletcher]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her contribution. I send my sincere condolences to her constituent’s family. It is a terrible issue and a terrible blow to the family. I will come to her point later.

AMOSSHE, the student services organisation, recently stated that it did not believe that an additional statutory duty of care

“is the right approach for embedding the wider improvements”

that it is committed to

“and that have been identified by bereaved families and the LEARN Network.”

PAPYRUS agrees that there should not be a statutory duty of care and that a more societal approach should be taken instead.

Further questions that have arisen from my research include the following. Why are all universities not implementing the trusted contact system and then using it? Why have all universities not signed up to the “Suicide-safer universities” guidance and the university mental health charter? Why are universities still carrying out bad practice such as telling students they must leave by email, without any thought of the inevitable emotional and mental impact? Why are universities not coming together to go through the coroners’ reports of the 319 tragedies that I mentioned to find common themes and spread best practice to avoid future deaths?

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is making an impassioned speech. My constituent Anu Abraham was on placement as part of a three-year course with Leeds Trinity University, training to be a police officer. Not only was he failed by the police, but he was failed by his university. Sadly, he took his own life in March this year due to the bullying that he was subjected to at his first placement, at Halifax police station. Far too often, calls of this nature are put to one side. As the hon. Member has said, a duty of care is needed, but does he agree with me and Anu’s family that we must ultimately learn from these cases? If we do not have a duty of care, we certainly need a much more holistic view to ensure that parents are fully understanding. Ultimately, parents put their trust in these institutions to look after their children, and that trust needs to be repaid with responsibility.

[Nick Fletcher]

Again, I send my condolences to the family of the hon. Member’s constituent. In this debate, we need to discuss that exact issue. The petitioners want a statutory duty of care, but there are many voices to be heard. I hope that we will have a good debate and that the Government will learn from it.

I hope this debate, with the facts that I have listed and the questions I have raised, will help all stakeholders come to the right decision for our young people. Before I finish, I want to state how I see the issue. Too many young people are taking their lives, but why? I believe we need to build more resilience in our young people. Life is tough, but it has always been tough—it is just tough in different ways. Work needs to be done to see how we can better prepare all our young people in the years before they go to university.

I say to universities: these young people are not just customers; they are students, and the sole reason for you working in the environment that you do. I know time and money are pressing, and I know many students are off and on campus and can live elsewhere, but surely to goodness you have to try harder. We legislate in this place when things go wrong out there, so please sort out what you are doing and get your heads together. If signing up to the guidance and the charter is a good step, which I believe it is, then please get on with it—no exceptions. You are meant to be the brains of this country. We should not have to debate this issue here. You are doing some good work, but you could be doing so much better.

I say to our Government: a statutory duty of care would ensure that all parties knew where they stood, but until we have one, please use the levers you have to make the universities do better at helping our young people. If they do not, do what the petitioners ask and legislate so that they must.

I say to parents: your child might think they are grown up—mine certainly do, and many in this place keep telling me that they are; the Opposition want to give them the vote at 16—but you know and I know that even at 23 they still have a lot of growing up to do. We all need our parents at some point. So, parents, please make that call, send that text or go and see them, even when they say no. Tell them that you love them. They need it more than you know. We all need support, however old we are. I know those that I have spoken to have tried, but everybody needs to. Everyone who has lost someone wishes they could still make that call, so do it now—and every week and every day if you think it is necessary.

As a result of having led these debates, I constantly ask my own children whether they are okay. They call me daft; they laugh at me for asking. I do not care—I ask, and tell them I love them, because I do. I say this to every young person out there: nothing is that bad. Trust me; I have heard it all in this place. No matter how bad things are, there is always someone to help, but you must ask. You are all precious and you are all priceless. There is only one of you. So ask. Make that call. Confess that issue. Tell someone that you are struggling. It does not matter what it is; it only matters that you ask.

Finally, I am sure that I speak for everyone here when I say that each suicide is a tragedy that will haunt family and friends for the rest of their lives. Although it is a great thing that, as the Office for National Statistics tells us, the suicide rate per head of population has declined by 28% since 1981, that is no comfort to those who have lost a loved one. Let us all play our part and do what we can in this place and in the world outside as we go about our daily business. I look forward to hearing colleagues’ thoughts and the Minister’s response.

Crisis in Iran

Christian Wakeford Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Gillian Keegan]

A viable deal was put on the table in March, which would have returned Iran to full compliance with its JCPOA commitments and returned the US to the deal. Iran has refused to seize a critical diplomatic opportunity to conclude that deal, with continued demands beyond the scope of the JCPOA. We are considering the next steps with our international partners but, as I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, we cannot comment on them at this point.

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)]

I put on record my support and admiration for those girls and women who are not only protesting, but putting their lives at risk on a daily basis. The violent crackdowns against civilians by the regime in recent days are a reminder of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s attitude towards dissent at home and abroad. Crackdowns against dissent are led by the regime’s ideological terror army, the IRGC. In light of the horrific state violence, both in recent days and in 2019, we have had multiple instances in this Chamber of both sides and all parties calling for the IRGC to be proscribed. When is it going to happen?

[Gillian Keegan]

I am afraid I must refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier answer: we keep things under review, but we cannot comment on any future actions.

Antisemitism: Bristol University

Christian Wakeford Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)]

It is profoundly troubling that in 2022 I have to rise and publicly speak about the hatred being directed towards Jewish students on university campuses. What should also be alarming to colleagues in this House and all those in wider society is the amount of parliamentary time that has been dedicated to the issue over the previous two years. I have sat through comments in this Chamber, read parliamentary questions and responses, heard evidence at the Select Committee on Education and led a Westminster Hall debate highlighting the concerns of Jewish students across our country.

Most Jewish students will enjoy an incident-free and happy time on campus, but I have heard testimony from many Jewish students and their families. When embarking on university careers, Jewish students and staff should feel safe, secure and supported. When issues arise, procedures should be in place and complaints investigated and acted on. Tragically, in many instances, that is not the case.

I have chosen to focus this debate on Bristol University because of the fact that it has shown a consistent disregard for the welfare of its Jewish students and, indeed, for Members of this House. Many will know about the abhorrent and racist views of Professor David Miller. However, there have been other instances of troubling behaviour that have not been addressed. Just yesterday, a Jewish academic shared on Twitter a screenshot of the university’s equality, diversity and inclusion training on religion and belief. The scenario explained that the best candidate for the job was Jewish and would therefore need to leave early on Fridays for shabbats, when there was a team meeting. If the participant answered the scenario by saying that there should be a flexible approach to hire the best candidate, they were told:

“Might not be a good idea.”

Essentially, this training is teaching participants not to hire an observant Jew.

The actions of David Miller will be familiar to most. Members will have read the numerous newspaper articles and heard the exasperation of Jewish students who were left exhausted and frustrated when raising these serious issues with the university authorities. To give some context, Professor Miller taught political sociology at the University of Bristol. He abused his position to extol dangerous antisemitic conspiracy theories to his impressionable students.

Miller conducted a module called “Harms of the Powerful”, including a PowerPoint slide with a fanciful diagram featuring a web of Jewish organisations placed under or subservient to the Israeli Government. The topic of the week in his February 2019 lecture was Islamophobia, and the slide was part of Professor Miller’s explanation of his theory that the Zionist movement is part of a global network that promotes and encourages hatred of Muslims and of Islam. The PowerPoint presentation he used included mainstream UK Jewish organisations and leaders in that diagram, implying that they were part of an alleged Islamophobic network.

One Jewish student present put it like this:

“As a Jewish student I felt uncomfortable and intimidated in his class. I know and understand what he says is false, it is clear however that a number of students in the class believe him, just because he is an academic”.

The same student said:

“I fear that if he found out that I was Jewish this would negatively affect my experience throughout this unit”.

A different Jewish student in his class stated:

“I don’t think it is right that I should have to sit in a lecture or seminar in fear. Fear that he will offend me personally or for fear that he is going to spread hatred and misinformation to other students who, in turn, can pass on these false ideas”.

The Community Security Trust, which monitors hate crime on behalf of the Jewish community, submitted a complaint to the university in March 2019. It was informed that

“the University does not have a formal process for responding to complaints from third parties”.

The university insisted that to look into matters further, a complaint would have to be submitted by a named individual. The students who had made contact with the CST insisted on their anonymity being preserved. As a result, Bristol University falsely asserted that it had received no complaints. That is clearly not the case.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the case of antisemitic racist Professor Miller, because that is what he is and what many of his supporters are. We should never shy away from calling him out as what he is, which is an antisemitic racist.

It is not just students who have problems, as my hon. Friend will be aware. I am one of the co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group against antisemitism, of which he is a vice-chair. More than 100 parliamentarians from seven parties have written to Bristol University. The APPG has written numerous times, and although we have had responses, they have been lacking in detail and in the information that we have asked for. Most recently, we asked the university to share with us the details of the training that it says it is offering on antisemitism. It is not good enough. The students should never have been put in such a position, but when 100 parliamentarians from seven parties are also ignored, that really tells us that Bristol is not putting the emphasis it should put on this important issue. It is frankly a disgrace.

[Christian Wakeford]

I find it hard to disagree with a single word that my hon. Friend says. It is an absolute disgrace that for more than two years, such antisemitic racist views were allowed to continue. What is more abhorrent is that even when she came in front of the Select Committee on Education, a representative of the university tried to hide behind the fact of having had a conversation and a dialogue with the Bristol Jewish Society—JSoc—as if that were the solution to all the problems. Again, that is not the case.

It is appalling that students felt that they had to choose whether to complain against an academic teaching racist conspiracy theory because they would inevitably face a backlash. The University of Bristol Jewish Society submitted its own complaint. In responding, the academic charged with reviewing the matter wrote in June 2019 that the internationally agreed definition of antisemitism, which the university later adopted,

“is a somewhat controversial definition, with some believing that it is imprecise and can be used to conflate criticism of the policies of the Israeli government and of Zionism with antisemitism”.

Instead, he decided to use

“a simpler and, I hope, less controversial definition of antisemitism as hostility towards Jews as Jews”.

He then ruled, regarding Professor Miller’s lecture, that

“I cannot find any evidence in the material before me that these views are underlain by hostility to Jews as Jews…I am unable, therefore, to find grounds upon which Professor Miller should be subjected to disciplinary action”.

That is completely contrary to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism. It subsequently transpired that the person charged with investigating the matter was a close colleague who was notorious for holding similar political views to Professor Miller’s.

In 2019, the then Member for Bassetlaw, now Lord Mann, wrote to the university on behalf of the all-party parliamentary group against antisemitism, asking it to review its disciplinary processes and consult antisemitism experts, but the institution refused. Following Bristol’s adoption of the IHRA’s definition in December 2019, a further complaint was made by CST, following further appalling, untrue and potentially dangerous allegations about the organisations, but this too was treated with utter disdain. The complaint followed Miller’s comments in an online meeting in which he described CST as

“people who must only be faced and defeated”.

CST is an organisation that looks after children going to school and people going about their daily worship and their daily Jewish life. To describe it as an organisation that must be defeated is absolutely abhorrent.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this important Adjournment debate. As someone whose constituency contains the Community Security Trust, I am shocked by some of the comments made by Professor Miller. He claims that CST is actually controlled by the Israeli Government, but I can assure the whole House that that is certainly not the case. One thing that CST does, certainly in the London Borough of Barnet, is keep our citizens safe.

[Christian Wakeford]

I completely agree. I have had the fortunate privilege of working very closely with CST since my election. For those who look after the safety of the community to be treated with utter disdain is absolutely appalling.

When challenged on his comments by Jewish News, Professor Miller said that CST

“is an organisation that exists to run point for a hostile foreign government in the UK...This is a straightforward story of influence-peddling by a foreign state.”

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I seem to recall that the previous title of CST was the Defence Department of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, so if CST is being accused of being an agent of the Israeli Government, presumably the accuser is saying the same about the Board of Deputies of British Jews. That gets pretty close to antisemitism in my book.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Wakeford]

Again, it would be remiss of me not to highlight the PowerPoint document in which not only the Board of Deputies but the Jewish representative councils, the Jewish Leadership Council and so many different community organisations were all highlighted as being part of a Zionist conspiracy, which is a blatant falsehood.

That comment alone from Professor Miller is blatantly antisemitic. Once again, the response from the university was underwhelming, emphasising that CST was an external organisation. It paid no regard to the fact CST was clearly not a third party and was in fact the injured party, given that the comments made were directly addressed to the organisation.

[Andrew Percy]

I am sorry to labour the point, but it is such an important point because that argument is an antisemitic trope that is used against anybody who dares to call this issue out or question it. It has been used against the APPG. We have been accused of being in the pay of Zionists, and videos have been produced accusing the group’s members of being on the take from the Israeli Government or paid for by Zionists. That is a regular occurrence and something that these people use time and time again against anybody who dares to question them: to accuse them of being in the pay of a foreign Government or some other shady characters in the background. It is pure and simple antisemitism. This has to stop, and I hope that the Minister will listen and contact Bristol University himself to demand that it shares with him the training materials that it is providing on this issue.

[Christian Wakeford]

I completely agree. Not only is it antisemitic, but the conspiracy theories alone are dangerous. They are false and inaccurate and, again, fuel the racist ideology that Professor Miller extols.

Seemingly encouraged by the lack of an official response to the complaints, Professor Miller carried on articulating his problematic views. He claimed that an interfaith cookery class was looking to normalise Zionism among Muslims. He also argued that

“Britain is in the grip of an assault on its public sphere by the state of Israel and its advocates”,

and called BBC’s Emma Barnett

“one of the most energetic Zionist campaigners in British public life”.

On the abuse of Jewish students on campus, he claimed:

“There is a real question of abuse here—of Jewish students on British campuses being used as political pawns by a violent, racist foreign regime engaged in ethnic cleansing”.

Again, this is not accurate. It is not true and it is dangerous.

One would have thought any one of those ridiculous theories would be enough for instant dismissal, but the lack of action emboldened Professor Miller. Even a letter signed by 700 academics, which stated that they

“believe that Prof. Miller’s depiction of Jewish students as Israeli-directed agents of a campaign of censorship is false, outrageous, and breaks all academic norms regarding the acceptable treatment of students”,

was ignored.

Professor Miller also had the audacity to criticise the Jewish Society and Jewish students for calling out antisemitism. Miller personally attacked the Jewish Society president, which led to a sustained campaign of abuse being launched online. In February 2021, the Union of Jewish Students once again had to release a number of statements, following further comments by Miller discussing some imagined global Zionist conspiracy involving Jewish students. It took until March 2021 for an investigation to be launched. Even after the outrage and a number of mentions in both Houses of Parliament, Miller was allowed back on campus, to the disgust of the Union of Jewish Students and its members.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) said, the leadership of the APPG continued to demand action from the university, in February and March 2021, when over 100 cross-party Members of both Houses intervened, and again in May and August. Each time our concerns were ignored, and Miller later suggested that the APPG, too, was part of an Israeli conspiracy.

The highest echelons of the university were well aware of Miller’s hateful views, and an unproductive meeting was held with the vice-chancellor and Jewish students. This was 165 days since Professor Miller had attacked Jewish students, and no guarantees were given on timescales or when the university would fulfil its basic duty of care to its Jewish students. Only on 1 October was news received that he would no longer be employed by the university. Giving evidence to the Select Committee on Education later that month, Professor Jessop mentioned that several training programmes were being run at the university, including on inclusion, Islamophobia and antisemitism. A letter from the APPG in October asking for details of the training was ignored.

The ordeal seemed to have drawn to a close, although a subsequent petition was signed by 460 people, mainly academics, highlighting this deep-rooted problem. Bristol University and Professor Miller are responsible for bringing antisemitism into a mainstream university campus, and they should be thoroughly ashamed. The fact that Bristol University took so long to act as Miller, a racist, peddled baseless conspiracy theories about his own students will be a permanent stain on its reputation. Initially, it stood by Miller’s teaching instead of protecting Jewish students from suspicion and discrimination. The fact that Bristol University did not act to protect Jewish students who were subjected to his disgusting conspiracy theories is a disgrace. This is a case study of how not to deal with legitimate complaints of antisemitism by concerned students who were deliberately targeted by one of its academics.

[Andrew Percy]

I am sorry to intervene again, but it is important to state that one of the defences used by the university was free speech. We are all cognisant of and protectors of free speech in this place, but free speech does not extend to racist language or the peddling of racist myths. It is shameful that the university used that as a defence. I hope that it will, in listening to this debate, reflect on that. Freedom of speech does not give us the ability and freedom to make racist comments or make Jewish students—or any student of any minority group—feel unsafe on campus. It was shameful that it used that as a defence.

[Christian Wakeford]

I completely agree. Freedom of speech is something we all treasure and hold dearly. However, freedom of speech should never include incitement to racial hatred, which is what was the case.

I have two substantive questions for the Minister. First, any improvement at Bristol University will involve training. Will he undertake to write to the university to find out what training is being undertaken, who has provided it and what quality assurance has been applied? Secondly, the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, as the Antisemitism Policy Trust pointed out, risks failing the Miller test by giving academics recourse to the courts when expressing themselves within their area of expertise—and we know how Miller describes that. Will he meet again with me the trust, the CST, the UJS and others on how the Bill can be amended to prevent that from happening?

I hope now that at the very least any institution planning to employ Professor Miller cannot say that it was not aware of his racism, and that Jewish students across the country will hear this debate and know that we will always stand with them and by them in the fight against anti-Jewish racism. That is what he is guilty of.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Wakeford]

Getting from where we were a couple of years ago to where we are now with regard to the number of institutions that have adopted IHRA is something we should be proud of. However, adopting IHRA is clearly just a badge. What can the Minister and the Department do to make sure that adoption is only part of the journey and that the definition is truly enforced as well?

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend pre-empts some of the comments I am about to make. I absolutely recognise that it is only a step on the journey and not the destination itself.

In October 2020, the previous Secretary of State wrote to all higher education providers, urging them to adopt the IHRA definition. He wrote again in May 2021, emphasising the importance of adopting the definition in the light of increased antisemitic incidences following the conflict in the middle east.

To support that, in the previous Secretary of State’s strategic guidance letter to the Office for Students last year, he specifically emphasised the importance of work on the IHRA definition and asked the Office for Students to undertake a package of work aiming to increase adoption levels across the sector. Last month, in response, the OfS published a list of providers that have adopted the definition along with case studies of where it is being used most effectively. I am pleased to see the progress made—my hon. Friend commented on this—with a marked increase in the number of providers adopting the definition from about 30 to more than 200, including the vast majority of universities.

Although that progress has been made, we are acutely aware that adoption of the definition is just a first step towards eradicating antisemitism in higher education. The Community Security Trust recently published statistics indicating that there is still much work to do. Some worrying examples were cited that demonstrate how much more needs to be done.

[Mr Walker]

Which is clearly far too many. I was going to say that while I welcome the fact that the CST found that the vast majority of Jewish students have a strongly positive experience at university, it is deeply troubling to hear that there were about 111 antisemitic incidents in the sector in the 2020-21 academic year. To see a number of high-profile universities, including Bristol, named by the CST as providers with high numbers of incidents shows that there is still much more work to do—even at providers that have embraced the IHRA definition.

Those worrying statistics follow the CST report on campus antisemitism between 2018 and 2020 that named six cities with five or more recorded incidents throughout the period, of which Bristol was one. It is even more concerning that many of the institutions named by the CST had already adopted the IHRA definition. I take this opportunity to echo the comments made in the debate and wholeheartedly express my support and that of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Higher and Further Education for the work done by the CST. I recognise how it provides invaluable assistance to the UK Jewish community, including in schools, for which I am responsible, and I know that the Minister for Higher and Further Education and the Secretary of State are looking forward to welcoming the CST to the summit that they are leading later this month focused on tackling antisemitism in universities.

We know from the statistics mentioned that while our work to increase adoption of the IHRA definition is important, it is not enough on its own. That is why the Government have provided, via the Office for Students, £4.7 million to support 119 projects with a particular focus on harassment and hate crime, including 11 projects targeted at tackling religion-based hate crime. Those projects concluded in spring 2020, and an independent evaluation showed that they led to increased collaboration between the sector and external partners such as charities or community organisations aiming to tackle religious hatred.

In relation to steps that the OfS is taking on tackling antisemitism, as well as publishing on 10 November the list of providers that have adopted the IHRA definition, it has published supportive guidance for providers. In 2019, Universities UK published a briefing note on tackling antisemitism, with which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Higher and Further Education has urged all providers to engage seriously. The OfS is also undertaking an impact evaluation on its statement of expectations on harassment and hate crime, which was published in April 2021. That work will take place from January to August. As part of the OfS’s next steps, it will consider options for connecting the statement of expectations to its conditions for registration.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury South raised the important question of how the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill will apply in this context. The Bill will strengthen existing freedom of speech duties and introduce clear consequences for where these duties are breached. Recent incidents such as those at the London School of Economics show the importance of the work in this area. I am absolutely clear that the Bill does not give a green light to antisemitism and holocaust denial. In particular, any attempt to deny the scale or occurrence of the holocaust is morally reprehensible and has no basis in fact. I am categorical that nothing in the Bill in any way encourages higher education providers or student unions to invite antisemites, including holocaust deniers, to speak on campus. The strengthened protections for freedom of speech are likely to support students from minority backgrounds, who, on a number of occasions, have had their speech shut down by others.

The Bill provides for the appointment of a director for freedom of speech and academic freedom to the OfS board, with responsibility for overseeing its free speech functions, including championing freedom of speech and recommending redress via a new complaints scheme where speech is unlawfully restricted. This will place an appropriate focus on these fundamental rights.

The Bill will protect the freedom of speech of Jewish students, staff and visiting speakers, which has at times been under threat, as we saw recently with incidents in our universities. It will stop universities using security costs as a spurious attempt to cancel mainstream speakers, such as has been the case when a society attempted to invite the Israeli ambassador, and it will mean that universities and student unions have to take genuine action against those who use violence or threats of violence to shut down speech, including that of Jewish students.

In addition to the Bill, there needs to be cultural change, and we welcome initiatives by universities, academics and students to drive this, but as we have seen historically on issues such as gender equality, race discrimination and human rights, cultural change occurs more readily when backed by appropriate legislation.

[Christian Wakeford]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Walker]

I will give way, but I am happy to commit to the meeting my hon. Friend has asked for, which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Higher and Further Education has offered to hold.

[Christian Wakeford]

I appreciate the offer of a meeting. Obviously, I will raise this in the meeting, but I will also raise it during this debate. Cultural change can only happen with open dialogue, training and transparency, so will the Minister commit to writing to the university to request details of the provider and what is actually being covered, as well as the assurance that this is meaningful training about how to tackle antisemitism?

[Mr Walker]

I think I can probably make that commitment on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Higher and Further Education, but I will certainly make sure that the Department follows up on it.

I did want to address specifically the case of Professor Miller at the University of Bristol. Universities are of course independent and autonomous organisations. Accordingly, the Government have not intervened directly in this case. I also understand that there are ongoing legal proceedings in relation to the case, so for that reason I cannot address all the specifics that my hon. Friend raised. However, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Higher and Further Education has said publicly on a number of occasions that the views of Professor Miller, in particular his accusations against Jewish students, are ill-founded and wholly reprehensible, and the Government wholeheartedly reject them.

My right hon. Friend met representatives of the University of Bristol in May 2021 not to intervene in its investigation, but to seek their reassurance that the university recognises its obligations to protect Jewish students from harassment and hate crime, and to support them if they feel in any way threatened. She also wrote to the university twice to ensure that it was supporting Jewish students and staff who may have felt threatened at the time. We of course welcome the university completing a full investigation into the conduct of Professor Miller, but we expect that future instances there or elsewhere should be dealt with in a much swifter and more decisive manner.

Tackling antisemitism is a priority for me, for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Higher and Further Education and for the Government. We are keen to hear from Jewish groups about what more can be done to make Jewish students and staff feel safe on campus. The Secretary of State and Ministers will continue to work closely with Lord Mann, the independent adviser to the Government on antisemitism, and also meet regularly with Jewish stakeholder groups.

As I mentioned earlier, later this month, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Education and the Minister for Higher and Further Education will be leading a summit specifically focused on tackling antisemitism in higher education. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that he intends to bring together key stakeholders from the sector to examine what more can be done to make Jewish students and staff feel safe on campus. This event will encourage discussion about what more can be done to eradicate the scourge that is antisemitism, and to agree concrete actions that providers can take to keep their Jewish students safe from it.

My hon. Friend asked specifically about antisemitism training at the University of Bristol. As I say, I am happy to make the commitment that the Department will write to the university again. I urge the university and other providers truly to engage with the communities that suffer from these abhorrent behaviours and to work with them to increase awareness of the impact of antisemitism and how it can be tackled most effectively.

My ministerial colleagues have worked closely with the Union of Jewish Students, which provides training on how to recognise and tackle antisemitism. I urge the University of Bristol to consider how it can learn more from those who are directly affected, and I know the UJS would be keen to support such work. My hon. Friend asked whether the UJS can be part of a meeting with him, the CST and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Higher and Further Education; as I mentioned earlier, she is happy to commit to that.

Our HE sector has enormous capacity to change lives for the better. I know that universities are serious in their commitment to tackling antisemitism, but there remains work to be done, as this debate has demonstrated. For our part, we will continue to work across Government to ensure that racism and religious hatred of any kind are not tolerated anywhere, including in our world-leading universities.

Question put and agreed to.

Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [Lords]

Christian Wakeford Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 15th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I will try to give way later. I apologise, but I need to make some headway, because a great many Members want to contribute to the debate.

Local skills improvement plans will help to ensure that the skills system is responsive to labour market skills needs and supports local innovation and growth, with every part of the country able to succeed in its own unique way. This is levelling up in action. As the Prime Minister said at COP26 two weeks ago,

“When it comes to tackling climate change, words without action, without deeds are absolutely pointless.”

In the Bill, we are taking that action by setting out the need to consider skills that support our path to net zero as part of the local skills improvement plans. It is not only good for the planet, but good for business.

Another priority for our skills agenda is for lifelong learning, and delivering on our commitment to the lifelong loan entitlement. The LLE will help to give people a loan entitlement to the equivalent of four years of post-18 education at levels 4 to 6, for use on modules or full courses, in colleges or universities, over their lifetimes. If you had told me when I was apprenticeship tsar under the coalition Government that there would be a Prime Minister who would introduce this measure, I would have bitten your arm off, Madam Deputy Speaker. I cannot emphasise enough that this is a step change in our system, which will revolutionise the way in which we see education, retraining and upskilling in our country. Some 80% of the workforce of 2030—which is not a long time from today—are already in work, so we need to be able to adapt to the future economy and those skills needs.

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)]

The fact that we are talking about further education and the skills guarantee is a paradigm shift, and it is very welcome, but what are we doing to ensure that those who do not have a level 2 qualification, or who have difficulty with reading, can access the guarantee?

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)]

I am delighted to speak today on this very important Bill. With the impact of covid-19, which exacerbated the skills shortage, the need to adapt to meet net zero by 2050 and the opportunity to flourish as an independent trading nation, the need to support skills across the UK is clearer than ever as we try to level up the most deprived areas of the country.

We talk about levelling up, but we are T-levelling up with this Bill. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on T-levels, I and the other members of the APPG heard at first hand from T-level students about the huge impact these qualifications have had on their lives and in assisting them to achieve their career aspirations. We heard from inspiring T-level students from Grimsby Institute, Walsall College, Fareham College, Blackpool and the Fylde College and Cirencester College, showing the huge impact these qualifications are having across the country.

I also had the huge privilege of meeting students at Bury College alongside the former Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan). We attended lessons to discover how students on the college’s brand new T-level courses would benefit from these innovative technical qualifications. Although there is more work to be done, such as ensuring there are no gaps in T-level provision in constituencies across the country, I am delighted that this Government have introduced the new qualification, effectively adapting to the needs of a modernised 21st-century British workforce.

Secondly, I emphasise the importance of improving literacy rates in the UK. Improving skills and introducing T-levels is a great step forward, but how can people access them without literacy? It is vital that literacy skills are embedded in a post-16 skills strategy. Research from KPMG has estimated that literacy failure costs the UK economy £2.5 billion each year. If we prioritise literacy skills in the post-16 space, it could have a significant economic benefit.

A quarter of all 15-year-olds have a reading age of 12 or below. That puts them at a disadvantage in their GCSEs, meaning they are unlikely to get the grades to progress to further education. Literacy should therefore be prioritised in the post-16 skills agenda to give students the vital skills they are missing, which will help them progress to further educational opportunities and enhance their future employment opportunities. That is particularly important when 70% of employers rate literacy skills as one of their three most important considerations when recruiting school and college leavers.

The National Literacy Trust has responded to that research with its flagship literacy and employability programme, “Words for Work”. It gives young people from disadvantaged communities the literacy and communication skills they need to reach their potential. It would be great if the Government recognised the importance of such programmes, which bring schools, colleges and businesses together to give young people the skills they need to succeed in the workplace.

Last, I pay tribute to the College of Rugby in Whitefield, which provides education, skills and training in the setting of a working rugby club. It also provides external qualifications, such as refereeing and first aid. It is great to see such institutions striking a realistic balance between sport and educational development. Will the Minister meet me to discuss what we can do to support unique institutions like that?

I support the Bill, which sets out to deliver high-quality, skills-focused education, eliminate the barriers that hold people back, and provide a ladder of opportunity across the entire country as we build back fairer.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to wind up for the Opposition after a good debate on this Bill, with some excellent speeches and important contributions from Members in all parts of the House. I repeat the tribute by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) to our colleagues in the House of Lords, who adopted a constructive, cross-party approach to the Bill.

I hope that the Minister has taken note of the contributions to this debate, because much of real value was said by Members on the Opposition and Government Benches. Indeed, two contributions from Conservative Members were—I suspect inadvertently—very revealing. The right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) revealed that adult education funding is currently at its lowest level for 23 years. That set me thinking about what might have happened 23 years ago that meant that adult education funding was at such a low level but improved substantially over time, only to reach its nadir now. Of course, a Labour Government happened 23 years ago, and it has taken 11 years to unwind that Labour Government’s investment in adult education to the current nadir.

The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), also made a revealing contribution: he said that levelling up is all about investment in human beings—people in every area throughout the country. Of course, he was one of the Secretaries of State who was in power while there was a 40% reduction in adult education. He presided over that. I absolutely agree that if levelling up is to mean anything, it has to mean investment in people, which is precisely what we have not seen under this Government.

A number of Members spoke powerfully about the role of BTECs. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) spoke of Lord Baker’s description of the defunding of BTECs as “act of educational vandalism”. My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) spoke up for her local college and about the number of students at that college who would miss out. My hon. Friends the Members for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) and for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) spoke of the importance of the BTEC pathway, particularly for disadvantaged students. And my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali) spoke passionately and movingly about his own journey as a BTEC engineering student who went on to be the very first person in his family to go to university, and his pride at seeing his son follow in his footsteps.

This question is really important, because the Government have set out to trash the reputation of BTECs and then come back and said, “Actually, we’re only going to get rid of some of them—only the low-quality ones.” The damage is being done already. Students are on those courses now: 230,000 students who are doing level 3 BTECs are being told that those are poor-quality qualifications. Why make that announcement and create all that uncertainty and then say, “Oh, we’re going to do a review and then we’ll look at the evidence.”? This whole approach has been wrong. I welcome the more conciliatory language that we are hearing from the new Secretary of State, but the damage has been done, and we need to quickly hear from him which of those courses will be carrying on, which ones will not and what is the plan for those students who will not be doing T-levels.

The real worry is that this will result in fewer students from more deprived communities achieving vocational qualifications at level 3. Pulling up that drawbridge will, without question, restrict opportunities, particularly for white working class and black, Asian and minority ethnic students from those communities. The Secretary of State repeated the description of BTECs as a low-quality qualification, so if we are hearing a change of tone, we need to know whether we are seeing a change of policy.

There was a lot of discussion about local skills improvement plans. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) spoke about the extent to which special needs students are missing from LSIPs, which is an important point. We very much welcome the Secretary of State’s climbdown on the subject of metro Mayors and their responsibility in terms of LSIPs, but if the responsibility of those elected to local government in metro Mayor areas is accepted, as was said by the hon. Members for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), what of areas that do not have metro Mayors? Why is there no local democratic accountability for those areas? It occurs to me that the vast majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends represent areas that have metro Mayors, but the majority of Government Members do not, so they will have no democratic accountability whatsoever. The point made by the hon. Member for Ipswich about the variation in chambers of commerce—some are very good and some are much less good—was well made.

[Christian Wakeford]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Perkins]

Let me crack on. If I have time, I would be very happy to hear from the hon. Gentleman.

The Government have indicated that they will seek to overturn Lord Baker’s amendment on careers guidance, which would have allowed a range of educational and training providers access to every student in years 8 to 13. The House will be aware that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has committed a future Labour Government to guarantee face-to-face professional careers guidance for every pupil, and compulsory two-week work experience. The Government should seek to match that ambition.

The hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) spoke about students considering careers that they had not even heard of previously. That is incredibly important. It is one of the reasons why careers guidance is so crucial. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South spoke about the fact that poorer children do not have the networks on which the more affluent children are able to rely.

We absolutely support the Government’s intention to introduce a lifetime skills guarantee. It is a return to what students would have been able to enjoy under a previous Labour Government. However, as has been said, there are currently 9 million jobs in our economy that will be excluded. Anyone who has a level 3 qualification already and wants to retrain in the future will be excluded from doing so. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) and the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), who is growing very nicely into his beard—[Interruption.] It is always a pleasure to see someone who has aged almost as much as I have in the past 11 years. He made what I thought was a mature point, bestowing on us his status as a greybeard, that this is not actually a guarantee. The fact that it is not on a statutory footing means that it is only an aspiration. It is an aspiration that we welcome, but the word “guarantee” means something. If we cannot guarantee that this will be available to so many students, as I have already laid out, it is not a guarantee at all.

We welcome the funding changes that the Secretary of State announced, but one of our key criticisms of the Bill is that much of it is ill-defined and not fully thought through. The fact that we have an announcement that there will be an extension while the Government work out which courses are needed and which ones are not is exactly why these announcements should not have been made until the Government had done their research.

[Christian Wakeford]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Perkins]

The hon. Gentleman is so persistent that I will—very briefly.

[Christian Wakeford]

T-levels are obviously a fantastic idea. We have already heard from the Secretary of State that there are more than 12,000 qualifications. Does the hon. Member agree that that is far too many and that, based on international comparisons, fewer than 1,000 would be really sensible?

[Mr Perkins]

It is an interesting point. The Government have said that there are too many qualifications. They have spoken about scrapping BTECs and are undermining them by saying that they are low-quality qualifications. Now they are going to go away and find out which ones they want to get rid of. That approach seems like it is the wrong way around. Why do the Government not identify the poor-quality qualifications and then start announcing their policy? That is where they have got it wrong.

Let me turn to the need to have maths and English as an exit-level qualification for T-levels. The Secretary of State is right to change his approach to the issue, as we have been calling for, but given that maths and English were an entry requirement for all students who are currently doing T-levels, the pilot is going to be misleading. The people who are doing T-levels currently—we will be investigating their outcomes in the pilot—will be different from those who will be able to study T-levels after this change. It is important that that is carefully considered.

The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) was absolutely right to speak about the universal credit amendment. We keep hearing the Government talk about the importance of people on universal credit being able to get into work. If we want universal credit to be a pathway towards helping the country to solve the skills crisis, people need to be able to afford to develop their skills. The hon. Gentleman was therefore right to say that the amendment should seriously be considered.

There were a couple of other very relevant contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) raised the important issue of FE lecturers’ pay. So many really good-quality FE lecturers have been forced to leave the profession because of real-terms pay cuts over many years. The skills drain has had a massive impact on our further education sector.

The hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) told us that he has been racing around employers in his constituency and telling them that there is an oven-ready Bill that will address all their skills needs. Well, he might be well advised to move office and not tell people where his new one is, because they might end up disappointed that he has slightly overpromised in that regard.

The hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) blamed the Labour Government for the fact that she was made to feel bad when she left school at the age of 15. I notice that she was 15 in 1996, so it was a Conservative Government who made her feel bad. I am sorry that she had that experience, but she is knocking at the wrong door.

The hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) addressed the problem faced by many hon. Members—a reduction in the time limit—by doing a seven-minute speech in three minutes. In the event that he ever loses his current job, he might want to consider being a horse racing commentator. But he had a lot to say and it was important.

My hon. Friends the Members for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) and for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) spoke about the scale of the cuts, and the collapse in investment in further education and adult education.

This is a small Bill, which is limited in scope. It leaves out apprenticeships and is silent on the role of independent training providers, which provide the majority of workplace learning. It lacks strategic vision, and is undermined by its lack of scale and urgency. There are some aspects that will make small improvements—we are not hostile to all that is in there—but it lacks the scale of reform and investment required to deliver the promised skills revolution.

The skills Bill is in danger of going down as an historic missed opportunity. The Government should recognise that the amendments introduced by their lordships strengthen the Bill; recognise that apprenticeships are central to skills in this country, and do more to increase the numbers studying and offering them; encourage a collaborative approach that recognises a role for all communities, whether they happen to have a metro Mayor or not; and address the chronic underfunding that has characterised the last 11 years in further education. If this Government took the approach that Labour is calling for today, they would have a chance of enabling England to compete with the very best skills systems in the world. It is the very least that English workers and employers deserve.

Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill

Christian Wakeford Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 12th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)]

First, I apologise about my voice. Like most people, two hours of shouting at a TV screen last night has left me quite hoarse. You will be pleased to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that that is the only reference I will make to football today.

It is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel). Although I share a lot of his concerns with regard to the Bill, I come to a very different conclusion, which is why I rise to support it. This, to me, goes a long way towards protecting our freedom of speech on university campuses. It is absolutely right that healthy debate—I emphasise the word “healthy”—is encouraged and facilitated, and opinions challenged, but in a safe environment. In recent years, we have seen a growing concern of harassment, abuse and intimidation on our university campuses, from blatant antisemitism espoused by lecturers, to imposing security costs on Jewish student societies, to no-platforming external speakers.

Not all students and staff feel able to express themselves on campus without fear of repercussions, particularly the Jewish students. During the latest round of violence between Israel and Hamas, Jewish students faced antisemitic abuse and even death threats almost on a daily basis. A Jewish student at Glasgow University was told to go and gas herself and a Jewish student at UCL was sent a picture of herself photoshopped under a guillotine. The National Union of Students blamed Israel for the rise in antisemitic incidents, before backtracking. It is absolutely abhorrent that our universities have failed to protect our Jewish students and that students do not even feel protected by the NUS.

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I am interested in the specific examples that the hon. Gentleman is giving, because surely this Bill would actually promote and protect the right of people to make exactly the kinds of abhorrent remarks that he is talking about, making Jewish students less safe on campus. How does he reconcile this aspect of his speech with his support for the Bill?

[Christian Wakeford]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I disagree with her. As we heard from the Education Secretary himself in his opening remarks, that would not be the case.

It should be a source of shame for all of us and for every university that Jewish societies often keep their event locations secret due to concerns about the safety of students. We simply cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that our Jewish students do not feel safe on campuses here in the United Kingdom. Last year, Bristol’s student union asked for a fee of £500 to safeguard the former ambassador Mark Regev. This is not an isolated incident. It should not be down to students to provide security themselves. As I have said before, universities have not just a moral obligation but a duty to ensure that all students are protected. This must extend to securing events and putting a stop to no-platforming once and for all. It is not just pro-Israel speakers who have been no-platformed. Indeed, a former Home Secretary was previously no-platformed from speaking at events as well.

It is absolutely crucial that the Government commit to ensuring that the Bill does not become a shield for those who wish to endorse poisonous views, including, as has been mentioned many times, holocaust deniers and far-right or far-left extremists. Universities must be a safe space for all students and institutions must take their duty of care seriously. After a great deal of encouragement from the Secretary of State and others, over 100 institutions have now adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism. This is a crucial step in ensuring that universities take accusations of antisemitism seriously. While the IHRA definition is now being adopted, I am encouraged that the Bill gives some teeth to implementing it, because far too often we see a lack of implementation. Again, I refer hon. Members to what is going on at Bristol University.

Just last month, the University of Warwick assembly passed a motion to challenge the IHRA definition of antisemitism. The university—I hope that the shadow Minister will address this—has failed to condemn the motion, despite calls from Jewish students to do so. The Union of Jewish Students rightly asked:

“How can they claim they want to fulfil their moral duty to protect all members, which includes Jewish students, when this motion clearly disregards the wants and needs of Jewish students?”

I therefore ask the Minister what further steps the Government are taking to ensure that the definition is not only rolled out across all institutions but fully implemented. What more can be done to ensure that academics face disciplinary action for making remarks or supporting motions considered to be antisemitic under the definition? I refer again to Professor Miller in that regard. Lastly, will the Minister join me in condemning the incident in which the University of Bristol sought to impose security costs on a student society for daring to invite the former ambassador for Israel, and can she confirm that the Bill will help to stop repeat incidents of that nature?

Although the Bill delivers on our manifesto commitment to strengthen academic freedom and free speech in higher education, universities must now follow up and ensure that campuses are truly open to rigorous, healthy contestation of ideas or be held accountable. We cannot rest until all students feel safe on campus.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Donelan]

I am confused about how the right hon. Member cannot recognise the evidence. We have heard from so many hon. Members today who have shared examples: my hon. Friends the Members for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) and for North West Durham (Mr Holden); the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry); the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield); my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings; the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), and my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton and for Dudley North (Marco Longhi).

Numerous studies have shone a spotlight on the problem, but they only document the tip of the iceberg, given the nature of the chilling effect outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). Think for a moment about those who feel too afraid to speak out for fear of repercussion, and feel that they have to self-censor. Our universities should always be bastions of freedom and intellectual discussion. That point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell).

As my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) stressed, how can we expect society to progress or opinions to modernise unless we can challenge the status quo? The intolerance and influence of some has led students and academics to self-censor their views. Those individuals are some of the best and brightest, yet their ideas go unexpressed. Imagine the potential loss here—we will never know. We can, at least, look back at the past. Where would we be now if the views of 100 or even 200 years had never been challenged? As a woman, I doubt I would be an MP, let alone Universities Minister.

No one can deny the massive impact that covid has had on students, universities and staff. However, to address the question asked by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) as to why we are doing this now, I would argue that covid has highlighted the value of personal freedoms that many of us used to take for granted. That is on top of the fact that the British public placed their faith in us to deliver on a manifesto—and deliver we certainly will.

We have heard from some Opposition Members that we need cultural, not legislative, change. I remind them that current legislation lacks an enforcement mechanism. Yes, some universities, including Essex, have got their house in order, and we recently saw a strong commitment from the Russell Group, but as so many speakers today have highlighted, there is a problem. We also know the crucial role legislation can play, and has played, in cultural change; take gender equality, race discrimination and human rights as examples.

A number of Members spoke about how higher education providers will have to balance competing duties. It is important to remind the House that they already have to do that. However, the Bill places a duty on providers to take reasonably practicable steps to secure lawful free speech. It does not supersede the Prevent duty or the Equality Act. The requirement to take reasonably practicable steps is right. It cannot be sensible to require providers to act unreasonably or to ignore their other legal duties. The Bill will give providers further clarity, because the new director will give advice and issue comprehensive guidance.

I want to be very clear: this Bill only protects lawful free speech. Harassment, racism, discrimination, hate crimes, and incitement of violence or terrorism will have no place on our campuses or in our society. In fact, I vehemently believe that we should defend and safeguard freedoms on all fronts, from freedom of speech to freedom from persecution.

[Christian Wakeford]

What we have heard from those on the Opposition Benches, in trying to suggest that holocaust deniers will be supported in going on to our university campuses, is clearly fearmongering. Will the Minister set the record straight and highlight that that is not the case and that we are supporting our students?

[Michelle Donelan]

I absolutely confirm that, and I agree with my hon. Friend.

Some Members have asked how the Bill will interact with the Government’s work to combat antisemitism. Antisemitism is abhorrent and will not be tolerated in our universities, which is why we have encouraged more than 100 higher education providers to sign up to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition. Regarding the specific question of holocaust deniers, any attempt to deny the scale or the occurrence of the holocaust is morally reprehensible and has no factual basis. In many cases, those who deny the holocaust have links to neo-Nazi extremism, antisemitic violence and intimidation. There are numerous reasons why someone who denies the holocaust should not be invited to speak on campus, and nothing in the Bill gives them a right to a platform.

Education Recovery

Christian Wakeford Excerpts

Tuesday 29th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)]

I shall try to be brief to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) to take part in the debate. Also, we all clearly want to see whether football is still coming home.

I start by taking the opportunity to put on record how grateful I am to all the teachers, headteachers and support staff, especially those in Radcliffe, Whitefield and Prestwich in my constituency. Ministers and Department for Education staff have also worked tirelessly throughout the pandemic, especially in my constituency, which has over 50 educational institutions.

I echo many of the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), the Chairman of the Education Committee, of which I am a proud member. He set out in his opening speech a wide range of the issues that are involved. I know how difficult it is to launch into the estimates day debate after having to introduce it last year in my right hon. Friend’s absence.

The Department for Education has a special responsibility to improve the life chances of all children in our country and to ensure that the most disadvantaged children reach their fullest potential. I have always argued that our education system plays a major role in the growth and progress of our society. It is the engine of our economy, the foundation of our culture and essential preparation for adult life.

Over the past 12 months, the Government have provided more than £3 billion in funding to tackle the devastating effects of lockdown on children’s education and wellbeing. I particularly welcome the Government’s national tutoring programme, which will provide 100 million hours of tutoring for five to 19-year-olds by 2025. That is exactly the sort of Government scheme that the country needs to ensure that our disadvantaged children receive the adequate support they need to catch up on what they have missed due to covid.

The national tutoring programme will be important for constituencies such as mine because Bury South is in the top 40% of constituencies with the greatest literacy need. Indeed, a third of the wards in my constituency are among the highest ranking in the country in terms of literacy needs.

My colleagues and I on the Education Committee have maintained that support should focus on closing that advantage gap and ensuring that those left-behind pupils, who have suffered enormously during covid-19, can catch up. I repeat my request to the Minister to meet me and providers from the NTP to ensure that everyone can take part in the scheme, especially those who specialise in online training.

The Department concluded last autumn that all year groups had experienced a learning loss in reading. In primary schools, that loss has averaged between 1.7 and two months. That was before the second and third lockdowns, so it is safe to assume that the position has worsened since then. We can only expect the level of need to have increased and we really need to take that seriously.

Furthermore, children with poor language skills at the age of five are more likely to experience social, emotional and behavioural difficulties later in life. Early language skills are therefore a crucial determinant of later success. Initial data from the second lockdown shows that any progress that was made when schools could open in the autumn was lost when they closed to key workers and vulnerable children in the winter. I am most concerned about the regional variation in the figures, with the north-east and the east midlands being worst affected and the north-west very close behind.

The new decade will be challenging indeed. Although the ambition of an education recovery plan is a good start, we need a long-term plan to tackle the attainment gap and falling literacy rates. I look forward to continuing to scrutinise the plans both in my role on the Education Committee and as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on literacy. We are keen to come up with viable solutions to address the severe effect of covid-19 on our children and young people. That should start now.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The clock is not going on for you, Mr Gibson, but please be seated by 4.53 pm.

Catch-up Premium

Christian Wakeford Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nick Gibb]

We did take the advice of Sir Kevan Collins, who supported our introduction of more funding for the national tutoring programme and the £400 million to improve the continuing professional development and training of teachers. We set up a review into the time element of the advice that Sir Kevan gave Ministers, which will report later this year in time to inform the spending review.

The House has a number of opportunities to scrutinise the work of the Treasury in oral questions, and the annual supply and appropriation legislation will be debated before the summer recess. There are also regular appearances by Treasury Ministers and officials before the Public Accounts Committee and the Treasury Committee.

Since the Government came into office in 2010, we have been focused on our mission of raising school standards for all pupils. Successive Prime Ministers and Education Secretaries have put in place ambitious plans to make sure that, no matter where you are born or where in the country you live, you will receive a world-class education. That is not a programme for a single term of Government; nor is it an initiative to get headlines. It is generational reform—long, steady, painstaking and difficult. We have much still to achieve, but we are making progress.

Before we came into Government in 2010, the correlation between parental wealth and pupil achievement was stubbornly entrenched. Children from poorer homes, who were already behind in their development when they started school, were falling further behind their peers. Rather than being an engine of social mobility, our school system was calcifying inequality. For Conservatives, for whom education is the gateway to opportunity, this was unacceptable.

We took bold, decisive action that was opposed all the way by the Opposition, but which has led to better schools and better life chances for young people. We overhauled Labour’s national curriculum, which was unnecessarily bureaucratic and too focused on a range of generic skills rather than rich, subject-based content, and replaced it with a new national curriculum, which provides pupils with an introduction to the essential knowledge they need to be educated citizens, immersing them in the best that has been thought and said. We took action to make sure that teachers got better training, and we introduced the pupil premium to give schools the funding they need to support disadvantaged pupils.

Our reforms are turning the tide, rebuffing the fatalistic assumptions of too many who seemed to accept that the gap between rich and poor is inevitable—the soft bigotry of low expectations, which for years was writing off pupil’s lives rather than striving to give them the education needed to influence their own destiny. Academic standards have been rising and the attainment gap between advantaged and disadvantaged pupils has been closing. Thanks to our reforms, more pupils are taking core academic GCSEs, more children are reading fluently and more children are attending good and outstanding schools.

We have taken action throughout this pandemic to ensure that children are supported, but our commitment to provide a good education for every child pre-dates covid-19 reaching our shores. We produced the best schools budget settlement for many years at the 2019 spending review. Totalling £14.4 billion, that is the largest cash boost for schools in a decade.

Core school funding increased by £2.6 billion in 2020-21, and is increasing by £4.8 billion and £7.1 billion in 2021-22 and 2022-23 respectively compared with 2019-20, including significant additional funding for children with special educational needs and disabilities. That unrelenting drive to give children and young people the best start in life meant that we were in a better place to handle the unprecedented challenges that the pandemic posed.

We know that the pandemic, as the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) said, has disproportionately affected children, with most missing at least 115 days of school. That is precisely why we took immediate action to provide education remotely, delivering more than 1.3 million laptops or tablets alongside wireless routers and access to free mobile data for disadvantaged families.

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the best place for a child has always been in school, and when Opposition Members, and indeed their councils and councillors, were calling for schools not to reopen last year that did a disservice to not only the country but our children, who matter the most, and does he agree that they should apologise for that?

[Nick Gibb]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no substitute for pupils being in the classroom with their teachers and friends.

This month, we published a report from Renaissance Learning and the Education Policy Institute, which presented a sobering reminder of the ongoing scale of the recovery challenge. Clearly, there is much work to do and we do not shy away from it, because the Government will always do whatever it takes to support children. That is why schools were the last to close and the first to open in tackling the spread of covid, because we know that getting children back in the classroom is vital to supporting catch up.

That it is why schools have access to both a catch-up and a recovery premium to enable them to assess what will help their pupils to catch up their missed education and to make provision available to ensure that they do so. It comes on top of our £200 million investment in summer schools, which is creating the opportunity for up to 600,000 pupils to take part in educational and enrichment activities. Over 80% of eligible mainstream schools have already signed up and a £220 million investment in the expansion of the holiday activities and food programme, which will operate across England over the summer and Christmas holidays, will provide eligible children with enriching activities and nutritious food.

Owing to the swift action that we took last June, children are already benefiting from the newly established national tutoring programme, with the £1 billion announcement in June last year, a further £700 million announced in February and, two weeks ago, a further recovery package of £1.4 billion. That brings our total recovery package to more than £3 billion. The next stage of our recovery plan will include a review of time spent in school and 16-to-19 education, and the impact that that could have on helping children and young people to catch up. Schools already have the power to set the length of the school day, but there is a certain amount of disparity in approach across the sector. The findings of the review will be set out later in the year to inform the spending review.

We all know what a superb job our teachers and support staff are doing and have done throughout the crisis, supporting and continuing to educate children and young people despite all the challenges that the pandemic has caused. We owe them our gratitude. Our teachers are the single most significant in-school driver of pupil attainment, which is why we have taken steps to give them more support and access to the very best training and professional development. We are investing £400 million to help to provide 500,000 teacher training and development opportunities across the country, alongside the support for those working in early years.

Some £153 million will provide professional development for early years staff, including through new programmes that focus on key areas such as speech and language development for very young children, and £253 million will expand our new teacher development reforms to give school teachers the opportunity to access world-leading training tailored to whatever point they are at in their careers, from new teachers to leaders of school trusts. That is a significant overhaul of teacher development in this country, giving teachers and school leaders the knowledge and skills that they need to help every child to fulfil their potential.

We are determined to ensure that children and young people catch up on the education they missed as a result of the pandemic. We have announced more than £3 billion to date, and the Prime Minister has been clear that there is going to be more coming down the track. We will do what it takes. While the Opposition are chasing papers, we are getting on with the job of reforming England’s education system, empowering teachers to transform lives through a knowledge-rich and rigorous curriculum in calm, disciplined and supportive schools. We want every child to attend a great school. It is a bold, audacious ambition. We have begun the journey. We have made great progress. We have further to go. We will not give up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)]

Thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I do not really know how to follow your former teacher, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), other than by saying that I disagree fundamentally with everything he just said.

May I put on the record my thanks to the hard-working teachers, headteachers and, more importantly, support staff in Bury South for their tireless efforts in keeping going during what has been the most difficult year they will ever have faced? One of the greatest tragedies of this pandemic is its impact on our children. Millions of young people lost months of face-to-face schooling, missing out on their education and the social interaction that is so crucial to their development. Unlike the Labour party, throughout the pandemic this Conservative Government made it our ambition to see the safe return of students to the classroom, where they belong.

I have said time and again that for me, levelling up is about education and improving the social mobility of our young people, ensuring that every child has access to good-quality education as we recover from this pandemic. That will be essential if we are to deliver on our commitment to level up Britain. That is why, as part of our long-term education recovery plan, we have so far invested over £3 billion, focusing on high-quality tutoring and great teaching.

[Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that tutoring must be targeted at the most disadvantaged children—the children who have suffered the most during this pandemic?

[Christian Wakeford]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; it is almost as if he has read my speech already.

I also want to pay tribute to the fantastic work that the Tutor Trust has been doing—especially considering that it is based in my constituency—in getting graduates out there and teaching the subjects they specialise in. That is what we need to focus on, and may I make a subtle plug to the Minister and ask him to meet me and the Tutor Trust to see what more we can do in future years? On the topic of tutoring, education is at the heart of our ambition to level up and make sure that all children, whatever their background, have a world- class education that sets them up for a happy and successful life.

I know from speaking to headteachers at St Monica’s and Parrenthorn in Prestwich and my work on the Select Committee on Education that more needs to be done to help disadvantaged students, who have been hit hardest by this pandemic, so I welcome the fact that the Government have listened and are taking action to make up for lost time in the classroom by committing £1 billion to the national tutoring programme. That will deliver 6 million 15-hour tutoring courses for disadvantaged students, targeting key subjects, including maths and English.

When Labour was last trusted with education, we fell down the international league table for school performance, which meant that pupils were not receiving the education they deserved. Between 2000 and 2009, England fell from seventh to 25th in reading and from eighth to 28th in maths. We will take no lectures from Labour Members who have spent the past year equivocating on whether students should even be back in the classroom—not forgetting the decline in school performance when they were most recently trusted with children’s education.

Furthermore, Labour has been proven to care about education when it is politically expedient, with the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), having had to apologise for describing the pandemic as a “good crisis” out of which Labour could create a political opportunity. Such behaviour by Labour is opportunism of the worst kind. When we had a real chance to debate education spending in last year’s estimates day debate, not a single Labour Member other than the shadow Secretary of State spoke.

Lastly, as we deliver on our promise to level up education, we are investing record amounts in schools, including by giving every pupil a funding boost through our £14.4 billion investment. Will the Minister assure me that the money we are investing will provide schools in my constituency with the funding they need to support the students who are most in need?

Ofsted Review of Sexual Abuse in Schools and Colleges

Christian Wakeford Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Vicky Ford]

The hon. Member is absolutely right that this can and does harm boys as well as girls. There are tales I have heard of boys also having suffered from having images of themselves widely shared with their peer groups. The abuse, bullying and harassment has led to devastating mental wellbeing consequences for the boys, and it is important that we recognise that as well.

There are four immediate actions that we are taking today. The first is to support designated safeguarding leads in schools, such as in Newcastle. They do excellent work, but many of them have asked for access to better advice, the sharing of best practice and continuous professional development, all of which we are working on through what I mentioned in my statement.

As I said, we will be increasing the funding for the bespoke NSPCC helpline, so that children in Newcastle and elsewhere, if they have suffered abuse, can pick up the phone and call that line. In fact, they can type in—many kids would rather send a text message to helplines than actually ring them. That advice is there.

Our teachers will get the extra support that we want to put in on how they can deliver the RSHE curriculum. As I have said, we are looking, for example, at better ways that we can help older children support younger children in this as well.

The fourth action we will be taking, which will be important in Newcastle as well as everywhere else, is making sure that our safeguarding partnerships—police, health and local authority children’s social care—absolutely ensure that the safeguarding arrangements that it is vital they wrap around children are working well in every single local area.

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her statement. The review has revealed that different parts of the state are not always working together as well as they should be to ensure that cases of sexual abuse are properly dealt with. Can my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that she will be working with the Home Office, local government and other bodies to ensure that cases are dealt with swiftly and consistently?

A Brighter Future for the Next Generation

Christian Wakeford Excerpts

Thursday 13th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

I perhaps exaggerated my enthusiasm to give way to the hon. Gentleman. We recognise how important it is that young people have a good understanding of climate change. That is why we are looking at bringing forward a natural history GCSE, which will be very important in both learning the subject and teaching it. The Government lead the world in this area: we are hosting COP26 in the amazing city of Glasgow, the Prime Minister is leading on this agenda at the G7 in Cornwall and we are setting the pace. We do not just talk about it, as the SNP does; we deliver on it.

The Prime Minister set out his vision for a skilled and resilient workforce when he announced the lifelong loan entitlement as part of the lifetime skills guarantee. That will transform opportunities for everyone, at any stage in their life, by providing people with a loan entitlement for the equivalent of four years of post-18 education to use over their lifetime.

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)]

To talk about levelling up is truly to talk about education. I thank the Secretary of State for the investment in secondary education that he has made in my constituency with the Radcliffe high school. When it comes to further education and the skills agenda that he has mentioned, the institutes of technology are a fine example of how we can achieve in that area. Will he meet me again to discuss the University of Salford?

[Gavin Williamson]

It is fair to say that despite the fact that my hon. Friend’s constituency was represented for many years by a Labour Member of Parliament, the free school in Radcliffe that was wanted so much was never delivered. My hon. Friend gets elected, however, and what does he do? He delivers for his constituents with a much-needed new secondary school. Of course, we all know how important institutes of technology are for driving the revolution in skills that we need to be able to meet the demands of the economy. I will be more than delighted to meet him to discuss the institutes of technology and how we roll them out across the country.

Our agenda will mean more choice and better prospects for all. This is levelling up in action, and it will turbocharge our economy by getting people back into jobs and getting Britain working again. It is a truly transformational investment in local communities, not an exit route out of those communities.

Our White Paper on skills for jobs sets out a blueprint for providing our young people with better choices within our further education system. New legislation will put employers at the heart of our skills reforms. They will join forces with further education colleges to deliver a skills accelerator programme. We are going to make sure that there is a better balance between the skills that local employers want from their workforce and those being taught by colleges and other providers, so that young people have a valuable and top-quality alternative to university.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

As a Scot myself, I feel pretty confident in saying that I do not think the priority for Scotland and for people in Scotland right now is a constitutional referendum. I do not think that it is the most pressing concern for young people when there are worries that they are struggling to achieve the same standards in school as we are seeing in the rest of the United Kingdom and when we see young people struggling to get—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) needs to hear what he does not like to hear. The Scottish Government are failing young people. Educational attainment is declining. We see no sign of their having taken on the seriousness of how the SNP Government have let down young people. Let us concentrate on the priorities that really matter for the future of young people in Scotland and across the United Kingdom.

Despite facing soaring unemployment and the toughest jobs market for a generation, young people in desperate need of new opportunities have been overlooked by the Government. The 16-to-19 funding for catch-up has been woefully insufficient, and careers advice and guidance will be crucial after David Cameron’s Government brutally slashed it. The Government’s proposals are too little, too late. Apprentices, and BTEC and vocational students, have been repeatedly treated as an afterthought. Unemployment is forecast to rise over the course of this year, and the consequences of the pandemic will be with us for years to come as huge parts of our economy and labour market experience profound change.

[Christian Wakeford]

Children’s attainment in literacy is going backwards, as is children’s mental health, and children are needing to go through potty training again. There are fears over people’s prospects and the jobs market. Which of the above does the hon. Lady think is a “good crisis” for people to take advantage of? Will she apologise for the comments that she made previously?

[Kate Green]

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for enabling me to be able to put on record in this House my regret for those remarks. They were inappropriate and insensitive and will have been offensive to people who have suffered terribly in this pandemic, including those who have been bereaved and lost those that they loved and will be missing terribly. I should not to have used those remarks, and I thank him for giving me the opportunity to put that on record in this Chamber.

If we are to seize this generational moment and deliver the fair, low-carbon recovery that we need to tackle the climate crisis, which is imperative if we are truly to pass on a bright future to the next generation, many people will need to retrain in new industries as old jobs disappear, as the Secretary of State said. But in the Queen’s Speech and in his remarks just a few moments ago, all that the Secretary of State could announce was a months-old commitment to a lifetime skills guarantee that simply is not guaranteed for everyone. It is not guaranteed because people cannot use it if they are already qualified to level 3; they cannot use it unless they are getting a qualification that the Secretary of State has decided he thinks is valuable; and they cannot use it if they need maintenance support while they are learning. If they are already qualified to level 3 in their existing field but need to retrain for a new industry, there is nothing on offer for them. Ministers have chosen to close the door on millions of people who need to retrain, and who need to do so now. I am at a loss to understand the Secretary of State’s position on this. Can he tell the House why a promised guarantee will not in fact be available to some of those who will need it most?

On maintenance funding, we are awaiting Ministers’ response to the Government’s Augar review, which is now over two years old. Augar said that those in further education should receive the same maintenance support as those in higher education. Does the Secretary of State agree with that proposal? If he does, why is it absent from the Queen’s Speech? While everyone will agree that employers have a central role in creating jobs and training opportunities for young people, they do so in the context of local economic and regeneration strategies driven by metro Mayors and local leaders, who seem to have been sidelined in the creation of the local skills plans and with the Government having abandoned a national industrial strategy.

After a decade of Conservative damage to the sector, I desperately want the Government to get skills policy right. Labour believes in a high-skill, high-wage economy that offers fulfilling, rewarding work and jobs in which people will take great pride. That is why, for years, I and my colleagues in the Labour party, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition in his speech opening the debate on the Loyal Address on Tuesday and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) during her time as Shadow Secretary of State for Education, have championed lifelong learning, further education and all those who learn and teach in this sector.

In contrast, in a startling, if only partial, conversion in the Conservative party after a decade spent in power, including times when the Education Secretary and the Prime Minister sat around the Cabinet table and nodded through cuts to further education and a loan-based funding model that, by the Government’s own admission, directly reduced the number of adults in education, we have reforms that offer, at best, a mere reversal of some of the worst excesses of Conservative ideology over the past decade. It is a desperate attempt to polish the windows, having taken a sledgehammer to the foundations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Kate Griffiths) and several members of the Education Committee, which I am fortunate to sit on.

I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) in relation to aspiration. For three days, we have heard Labour Members talking down their towns and this country. The Conservative party truly is the party of opportunity and, more importantly, of aspiration, with the view that our best days truly are ahead of us. Let us not forget those great, well-known philosophers, the band Chumbawamba, who, in their hit single “Tubthumping”, said: “We get knocked down, we get back up again, you’ll never keep me down.” This country has been knocked down by the pandemic, but we will never keep this country or this Government down as we level up our regions and build a truly global Britain.

Levelling up, however, cannot be achieved without education, which is what I wish to focus on for the rest of my speech. The skills and post-16 education Bill will allow residents of Prestwich, Radcliffe and Whitefield to retrain later in life, with the lifetime skills guarantee ensuring that everyone will be able to achieve a minimum standard of a level 3 qualification. As we bounce back from covid thanks to the vaccine programme, this Government are delivering a long-term catch-up programme so that all children across Radcliffe, Whitefield and Prestwich can achieve to their fullest potential. However, catch-up cannot only be focused on attainment; it also needs to be focused on our children’s mental health, with a more holistic view, so that they truly are catching up and achieving the most.

I declare an interest in that, having a very young daughter, I want the very best in early years, so that our youngest children can get the best start in life, setting up their education and careers for life. Acting on the early years healthy development review, we are truly able to do that.

The Government’s free school programme is ensuring that the children of Radcliffe will no longer need to travel out of the town or, many times, even out of the borough to receive a world-class education. After many years of failed Labour promises, it is this Conservative Government who are achieving that. It is this Conservative Member of Parliament who has taken just over 12 months in this role to achieve just that.

However, to ensure a bright future, we need to address the elephant in the room: illiteracy. The BBC launched its programme this Monday to get the roughly 9 million people who have difficulties with reading talking about the issue and improving the country’s literacy rates. Not reading holds us all back in terms of health, employment, opportunity and family. If someone cannot help their own child with their homework because they are unable to read, they are holding their child back, too.

It has taken many years to overcome the stigma of mental health. With the help of the National Literacy Trust, which provides the secretariat for the all-party parliamentary group on literacy that I am fortunate to chair, we will overcome the stigma of illiteracy as well, because it cannot be right that in the 21st century one in six people in Britain, one in four in Scotland and one in eight in Wales are unable to read. My task is to ensure that the Government will continue to focus on that—I hope the Minister will be able to focus on it later, too —because it is a scandal that every single Member of both Chambers should be ashamed of. We will continue to do all the work we can to address that issue.